The Government says there's no money...but Gove says get a £60m yacht for the Queen?

(Original post by electriic_ink)
Is that the best reason you can come up with for using taxes to buy someone who can live in a wide variety of palaces a yacht?

Except it's not for her though is it? It's part of the celebration of the Diamond Jubilee. It's like me saying, 'Ohh nah, you don't need a suit for your wedding, you've got loads of Jeans and T-shirts...'

(Original post by Steevee)
Except it's not for her though is it? It's part of the celebration of the Diamond Jubilee. It's like me saying, 'Ohh nah, you don't need a suit for your wedding, you've got loads of Jeans and T-shirts...'

If I had to choose between feeding and educating myself and renting/buying a suit for a wedding, I'd think people would understand if I chose the former. However, Michael Gove (and you apparently) think it's better to choose the latter. Why?

(Original post by Steevee)
This is a one off thing, we can afford a little pomp and ceremony.

(Original post by electriic_ink)
If I had to choose between feeding and educating myself and renting/buying a suit for a wedding, I'd think people would understand if I chose the former. However, Michael Gove (and you apparently) think it's better to choose the latter. Why?

In other words, we should do it because we can.

Because it's one or the other right. Herp Derp.

No my dear, we should do it to stand on ceremony, to keep the Monarchy grand, to celebrate a joyus national occasion, to keep National standing on the international stage, for publicity, for tourism. The list goes on.

(Original post by Steevee)
Bearing in mind the amount the Crown Estates contribute, the amount of tax money spent on normal people's enrichment and providing services and so forth, I don't think they should have to.

The profits on the land that is repaid to the government is money on land seized by the government x number of years ago. Either reclaim them government property and use them for other purposes or find whoever owned them. Of course it's a bit late for this now but they could still be renovated into hotels or some such.

I really don't care about the Royal Family personally, but I find it absurd that people can say things like 'I'M SO ANGRY THAT STUPID OLD WOMAN AND HER FAMILY GETTING MONEY THROWN AT THEM OMG IT'S SO OBSCENE' ... I don't know much about the topic but I'm under the impression at least that they do bring in more money than they take... in any case I don't see anyone who thinks it's so abhorrent coming up with any real figures that support their view...

(Original post by Steevee)
Because it's one or the other right. Herp Derp.

Yeah. If you spend £60m on a yacht, you can't spend it on keeping hospitals open.

No my dear, we should do it to stand on ceremony, to keep the Monarchy grand, to celebrate a joyus national occasion, to keep National standing on the international stage, for publicity, for tourism. The list goes on.

This yacht won't be a profitable tourist attraction and the Olympics will give us plenty of publicity this year. The other reasons aren't really reasons at all: "to keep the Monarchy grand" wtf does that mean?

Yep let the taxpayer foot the bill of a £60m yacht for the queen, let's also invest £32m in a pointless rail line thats half an hour quicker than normal, we'll get even get the nhs to clean up the mess created by the private healthcare firms.

god damn, someone sack him.. doing an atrocious job in his role regardless. I'm sick of reading about luxuries coming at the expense of the taxpayer. Is there no one doing a cost benefit analysis of anything?

(Original post by That Bearded Man)
The profits on the land that is repaid to the government is money on land seized by the government x number of years ago. Either reclaim them government property and use them for other purposes or find whoever owned them. Of course it's a bit late for this now but they could still be renovated into hotels or some such.

This debate has been had manh times on TSR, the outcome is always the same. Neither the Government nor the Crown can independantly claim the Crown Estates, that said, the Crown is under no obligation to keep to the agreement made years ago that benifits the Government far more than them.

(Original post by electriic_ink)
Yeah. If you spend £60m on a yacht, you can't spend it on keeping hospitals open.

This yacht won't be a profitable tourist attraction and the Olympics will give us plenty of publicity this year. The other reasons aren't really reasons at all: &quot;to keep the Monarchy grand&quot; wtf does that mean?

Herp Derp. Guess spending x on EMA meant we couldn't spend it on hospitals, damn students denying us our healthcare! Spending x amount on outreach schemes meant we couldn't spend it on hospitals, damn youths killing my grandparents! If you honestly believe the NAtional Budget is so simple I;d advise you to go back to Primary school where you belong.

I'm sorry, what qualifies you to make that judgement? I'll point out again just how many visitors have flocked to see Kate Middleton's wedding dress Yes they are, the Monarchy plays a key role in our international standing. They are a National insitiution and should be kept in such esteem as befits their place.

(Original post by Steevee)
Oh please. This is a drop in the ocean compared to the Olympics or the benifits bill. The Diamond Jubilee isn't something that happens everyday, when was the last one?

Its always a small drop in the ocean when it comes to vanity projects like these, but when schools want funds to improve their dilapidated buildings and facilities, suddenly they can't because ''we're all in this together'' and ''we all must have to tighten our belts for the sake of the country''